About your Search

20090801
20090831
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19
india. we learned from democrat senator claire mccaskill that, quote, if we go too far with this, that is cap and trade, then all we are going to do is chase more jobs to china and india where they've been putting up coal-fired plants every 10 minutes. in sum, we have a slew of hearings in three unsuccessful votes on the senate floor. actually i'd say four because we rejected the kyoto treaty in the beginning. the democrats taught us that cap and trade is a great big tax and will raise electricity prices on consumers i would have to say in a regressive way, send jobs to china and india all without any impact on global temperature, so off we go into the august recess secure in the knowledge that cap and trade is riddled with flaws and that democrats are seriously divided over one of president obama's top domestic policy priorities. and we also know that according to a recent polling the american public is increasingly unwilling to pay anything, as the polling has shown, to fight global warming. but all this does not mean cap and trade is dead and gone. it's very much alive as demo
the economy, reduce the number of jobs, weaken the businesses, guarantee that china and india will outcompete us in of the world market and the only alternative to that is real change. you're not going to be able to get cleverly from here to a better future, as long as the system, whether it's at the state level or the federal level is dominated by structures of special interest, whose entire future is a function of bigger bureaucracies, more spending and higher taxes, so i hope i've at least made 18 nibble case that what we need is a dramatic level of change. what i would like to do is take a five minute break and come back for c-span, but i appreciate you giving us this much time to outline the initials, and then we'll start with questions right after the break. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> our liver coverage of this forum on the government budget process will continue in a moment. former house speaker newt gingrich will take questions from the audience an we'll continue our live coverage in just a moment. in the meantime, here's a conversation about the
, one hears that the russians have been selling more advanced weapons to india, they have also sold some advanced weapons to malaysia and i understand indonesia. they have, obviously, a deep oblem with japan because of the northern territories, but nevertheless, if the rusans were to see their relationship with china as in some respects inhibited, aren't the assets avaible to the russians to, if you like, increase their livery somewhat? >> well, the russians have been trying to exercise those. they understand that, and so, for example, the arms relationship was always something that implicitly if the tensions became worse, the russians could do what the united states did after tiananmen which was cut that off. but now the chise can develop a lot of this stuff indigenously, so that leverages decline. the oil and gas we discussed, it's something that russia's been trying to use to, say, threaten or not threaten but really just bargain off china and japan and other countries to get them to pay higher prices, and the chinese for a while, you know, pretty much stood on their terms. now the ru
and demonstrations of around india against the united states. bald was the reason? was their something, that found some kind of underground connections or why -- he was in the u.s. dozens of times in the past and there was no problem at all. >> i actually think that the ambassador, our ambassador to india put out a statement on this case. beyond that i think i will defer to the department of homeland security. >> are you a thinking [inaudible] harassment, he feels since he was coming round the usa [inaudible] >> i am not equipped to comment on the case at this point. >> this has gone back to an older issue but it is again a new u.s. ambassador is starting in london and the mayor of london's office as well as members of the london assembly are calling for the u.s. to reevaluate its policy on congestion fees for the city and what the united states to pay 3.5 million pounds of fees' they say the united states owes. >> is there any change of policy coming or would you consider changing policy based on new ambassador? >> our policy does not change with the change of ambassador. >> what is the policy? >
. furthermore when you're faced with competitors like china and india you have to have a strategy for economic growth and economic development in and time of considerable challenge. our argument is if we want to build a system of prosperous, and free future we need to create the most productive, most creative, most entrepreneurial pro-market economy that runs on smart and effective economic regulation. let me be clear, i believe that if you set out, say, what would maximize the number of entrepreneurs in america. there are ways to do that. what would maximize the number of smaller businesses created by small business? there are ways to do that. if you say, how can i have the most continuous process of innovation, we know how to do that. it just doesn't fit the political elite definition of the future, which is high tax, big bureaucracy, and politicians entered. so long term we are going to need budgetary reform legislation. in the last congress more than one dozen bills were introduced to establish entitlement and budget provisions. but all the legislation did was have the same old conversatio
in south asia and has testified several times before congress on issues related to india, pakistan, afghanistan, and the u.s. image abroad. she cochaired the working group and independent bipartisan working gup made up of a handful of us-based experts that published report in september 2008 and titled u.s. and pakistan, the next chapter. before joining heritage, she was a professional staff there at a senate foreign relations committee where she had a south asian portfolio for the committee chairman senator richard lugar. from 2001 to 2003, she served as the senior adviser in the state department of south asia bureau where she advised the assistant secretary on india, pakistan relations. in the late 1990s, she served with the central intelligence agency as a political analyst on sout asia. she also served as political officer to the u.s. embassies in islamabad and new delhi in the earlier 1990s. where she meritorious honor award from the state department, as well as honors from the cia for her analytical work on indo pakistani relations. most recently, she visited afghanistan in la
in hindi and nobody who's college educated in india they have a serious condition that they can't afford to treat and being able to buy a ticket and come. that would be more of a phenomenal on the most educated with one very notable exception. maybe at the border there would be people who come across the border to get medical care. there are -- and that would be another example. there are about 400,000 births to say illegal immigrants in the united states each year comprising 1 out of every 10 births in the u.s. what percentage are people who arrive pregnant, women who cross the border or overstay a visa pregnant. it could be a large number, 20,000 and it could cost taxpayers millions and it certainly does but it's hard to get a handle on how big is that is potentially but as robert pointed out, that if you don't verify which is what this new bill considers, that could grow much larger than whatever it is now. >> i would consider the precedent for medical tourism to be quite strong indeed because we've already done this once as a nation or something very similar. in the 1980s and 1990s,
mobile launchers on the landma landmass. and then of course we had i-india, just a few weeks ago india launched its first submarine that has a capability so they can launch missile. they're not as potent as russia and china and the united states, but nonetheless. this is a trend. and i think what we're thinking nuclear posture review and what it is, we would like to shape, the kind of nuclear relationship we would try to influence for the future, i don't think it is in our interest to advocate a posture where countries have nuclear weapons floating around in the oceans, hiding. there hard to verify. hard-to-find. they can sneak up on you, etc. etc. this is a bad posture it seems to me. we're trying to take the dynamic out of the plan, etc. so those are my angles to the submarine issue. but we're advocating phasing them out. and focusing our posture on a land-based posture. also where you have -- ever since the cold where what we have been doing is we have been pulling our nuclear weapons in. they used to be deployed all over the world. we have been pulling them back to the country and
trade, which is to say europe, china, japan, maybe in the future brazil, india and so on, as long as they are not on this fta list and the ogrin is marginal. then you have the doha round. centrality of agriculture to it is very important to poor countries and i think american farm -- farmers and ranchers have a good case to say that their industry is more restricted and more limited by foreign trade barriers than any other. agriculture is about eight or 10% of american exports which is not going to go even if there is a big and successful doha round. so i think if the administration goes to the public and says we want to make a big push for doha at least as it is and for these fta is the public will say the president is a smart guy, i kind of trust in. not got much to do with me. and given that trade is a difficult issue within the democratic party, i think of the administration is going to make a big push for trade, and spend political capital on it, it needs to have a somewhat different agenda that will do more for america as an economy and do more for our national security goal
, india and russia they have about 3 million people. and if the only educated 10% of their kids, only 10% that would give about the same as our population if we had educated everyone to a high level. let's just say we educate only 25% which is high right now. if we educated 25% but would just give 7million people. so, when you look up the global, a, you hav a poll of 375 million people. and then you have costs of living standard of living is based on and if people aren't really pushing for these global jobs who is going to gethem? so if our kids can't be adaptable, flexible, smarter, more innovativ it's going to have all lot to say about where we are going to be as a nation. so i use this as a backdrop to talk about what and visiting all of these countries over the past years that i have had an opportunity to visit, 23 of them inurope, australia, new aland and asia and some of them i have been anywhere from four to eight times and i look around with some people he been with me on some of these trips and what we try to do and understand i think is very important, and what does it take to
in algeria and india. in algeria the russians and sold them 29 and had to take him back because they were defective and then they gave them to their own forces. [laughter] the next time you fly, and you have been aboard. [laughter] and indigent if you follow the indian discussion, i mean, this incredible story of the admiral is a fiasco of cosmic proportions and the russians are embarrassed. it turns out a lot of the 29 states sold also were defective in some respects or others and people in the indian government has en complaining several years now the russians are selling them junk. the rubber is going to meet the road when the iian government puts up 126th fighter planes. fighter planes are what made the russian defenseonnection to indy 500. if they lose the contract they are in a dangerous position economically. so, yes they are selling weapons to the southeast asians and they obviously want to diversify for an exposure for reaso obvious to everybody but the fact of the matter is russia cannot compete and it is their own fault as we discussed earlier. next question over here. >> secon
would have come from other places, vietnam, india, or brazil. even if we had only been worried about u.s. workers and not u.s. consumers, this would not have donenything for u.s. workers. these are some of the same discussions that we're seeing now. the problem is that there were strong philosophical approaches which said that the reason the bush administration did not do this was this ideological commitment to free trade and they are willing to sellout u.s. workers and things would not be any different. that premise would make it very hard to say, we just checked and there are more countries out there than just china and this might not actually do much. >> of political comment, because none of us are confident the deal with the technicalities of this particular case. as phil mentioned, surge protection was part of a deal to get congress to deal -- to mix at dublin's -- wto admission for china. whether or not any of these cases merited its use, a lesson that people in congress who made this deal will clean from what the bush administration did -- and let's assume that the obama adminis
from india dressed as civilians over there, along the afghan, iranian borders building pipelines? and roads. why did he conveniently leaves out? people need to wake up in this country. and what these neocons are really all about. and thank you for allowing me to speak my word. . . republican, mobile, alabama. caller: thank you for taking my call. a question regarding the health care debate. excuse me. all of our representatives and alabama are republican and i have been waiting for them to have town hall meetings so we can join in the debate and i have heard nothing. i have written to our representatives and the only response i get is that they are opposed to president obama's plan but there is nothing about people -- they say nothing about what republican proposals are to do something about the bob cost of health care. so i would like for someone to challenge the republicans to find out what it is they are proposing that you do about the rising cost of health care. rising xt comment on cost of healthcare. >> host: the next comes from burlington, vermont. good morning, ron? >> ca
the united states falling into the influence of russia, india, europe, and form a basic balance of what they call democracyization, they mean externally in the terms of the balance. the segments also -- china and russia has the u.n. vetoes and insofar as the united states are giving up the resolution, they can veto that. they can use that veto power to modify resolutions about their friends and allies in the third world developing countries. they -- the segments often in their segment they often tend to agree on what they don't like about american policy, although they don't name the united states. there's our criticism of democracy efforts or efforts from one political system on a different political system or culture. there is the attempts to militarize and so on. they settled one major point of contention. they finally made their joint border, they now finally settled that. and now that will become contested for a while. even in the energy realm if you consider energy security and dimension security, there has been a major turn around in the past year. after many years of frustrated
china and india refuse to do the same. i do not agree with a government takeover of health care that would force millions of americans off their current health care, drive health care costs even higher for families, ration care, restrict access to the latest cures and treatments, and put health care decisions in the hands of government bureaucrats rather than doctors and patients. but i do agree that the country is tired of partisanship infecting every debate. the country is tired of actions by a congress becoming a political battle. and so while i do not follow the hypocrisy of many of my democratic colleagues who refuse to -- refused to support justice roberts and alito because they disagreed with their judicial philosophy and now suggest that republicans not do the same. i respect and agree with the legal reasoning of my colleagues who will vote "no." but i will follow the direction of the past and my hope for the future with less polarization, less confrontation, less partisanship. my friends in the party can be assured that i will work as hard as anybody to ensure that the
and is bound by. there are three nations in the world that did not sign. israel, india and pakistan. they are not bound by the treaty. but iran is. iran violated that treaty in a series of different respects, and iran has been sanctioned by the united nations for those violations. the sanctions are way too weak to cause a change in iran's behavior, but at least it demonstrates that iran has violated its nonproliferation treaty and responsibilities. the fact is that while iran has the right to develop electricity from nuclear power plants, they are clearing their natural gas. so if they want electricity, they could generate electricity for a couple of cents a kilowatt because natural gas is free to the. >> host: what is the deal? >> guest: they have no way to export it. liquefied natural gas plant would be very expensive and there are no gas pipelines running from iran to market. >> host: back to pakistan for a moment. a full page of photographs for afghans. a new test of democracy. the presidential election, their elections are coming up in 10 days, august 20. what are your hopes fo
of mexico's economic outlook. santiago on my i-india left is the vice president of the answer american development bank, in charge of sectors of kwledge, if you want explanation and stay a few minutes afterwards. he was the chief economist for that, and he has a long distinguished career in mexican public service. he was the overall general director of the mexican social security institute which is a massive public enterprise whose deputy minister at the fince ministry, and he was largely credited with having, if not exactly invented certainly put into practice and orchestrated the opportune, a program. also a very productive scholar at the intellectual, he is putting out more books than i n read. in any event, thanks very much for joining us. santiago. next, e director of sovereign ratings and standard and poor, and responsible for the sovereign analysis in the latin american group. she also teaches part-time at colombia university school of public and international affairs. she worked at the federal reserve board of governors in washington. let me say that the job of the southern rat
china and india to act first. if america solves our energy problems first, every country on earth will beg for the technologies that we developed. if not, we will be begging for technologies developed elsewhere. america has always prospered by being one step ahead. we mass produced the car and american manufacturing built the middle class. we sparked the i.t. revolution and our high-tech revolution gives us high-paying jobs. today being one step ahead means developing the clean-energy technologies of future before anyone else does. waiting for china to address its emission problems before we address ours is like waiting for an opponent to finish the race before we start to lace up our shoes. china's not waiting for america to act. it's already implemented strong policies to promote clean energy. chinese fuel-efficiency economy standards are higher today than ours will be in 2020. they have already set a 15% renewable energy standard for 2020. and their government recently said they could reach 20%. and in 2009 china became the world's largest clean-energy investor. it plans to spe
of the u.s. government interacted in the handling of detainees. india, the interagency aspect is critical, as is how the various agencies related to the most senior officials in government. on the basis of physical and copperheads of review, the commission can then make recommendations which will help guide us in the future. this process is fundamentally about understanding where we have been, inrder to determine the best way forward. some might argue that such a commission is no needed. after all, president obama has issued a series of executive orders that chart a new course on detention and interrogation policy. as imptant as these orders are, i believe that something more is needed. it's not enough to say that america is discontinuing the policies and practices of the recent past. we must as a country take stock of where we have been an determine what was and is not acceptable, what should n have been done, and what we will never do again. it is my sincere hope that the commission will confront and rect the notion still powerful in our midst that these policies were and are a proper c
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19